Just a quick question/thought. Given that the e-mail trail has gone off
the weeds, wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw this case, and resubmit
new materials under a different number (and with a fresh e-mail log?)
I'm thinking of the situation when in the future, someone wants to back
reference -- it seems kind of unfortunate that one has to go back
through a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant.
(In other words, perhaps instead of "waiting need spec", we should be
more willing to withdraw and resubmit under new materials and case number.)
-- Garrett
Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
>>
>> OK, I derail.
>>
>> This should not be consider to be any thing negative by the project
>> team (other than strange allusions to a potential Major release).
>> This has just become too complex (not obvious) and too many differing
>> views have been expressed (not non-controversial). It just ain't
>> fast-track appropriate.
>>
>> See you in Presidio.
>>
>> - jek3
>
>
> I spoke with Gary, the project team, a VP and other hanger-ons...
> Here is the new, proposed process to get this case to close:
>
> The case is now in "waiting need spec" (not running, not derailed).
>
> The project team is going to spend a few days agreeing on some
> fairly minor points.
>
> When they are done, they will resubmit the specification and the
> case will then be running (not derailed) with a new time-out (business
> as usual).
>
> The expectation of the recrafted specification is that...
>
> 1) It will not specify anything about a potential "major
> release".
>
> 2) It will restate a few points which seem to have caused
> confusion and/or disagreement withing the project team.
>
> 3) It will probably (re)state a few points around what this
> case is *not* about, because the mail trail has gone off tangent a few
> times (who PSARC? Nah,... couldn't happen).
>
> (Any corrections by the con-call attendees are welcome.)
>
> - jek3
>
